Topic: Jail Populations

Our county in Arizona has successfully and safely reduced the jail population in rapid response to the COVID-19 emergency, and to our knowledge, has so far avoided a single case of infection in our jail system, thanks largely to interagency trust built over several years—in significant part due to our participation in the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge initiative.

Pima County, Arizona, where I serve as a prosecutor, was one of the first 10 sites to be supported by the challenge in 2016, with the aim of reducing our jail population and tackling racial and ethnic disparities within the system.

Pima County’s geographic area is 9,000 square miles, the size of Connecticut, with a population of more than 1 million residents, and home to Tucson, the second-largest city in the state. Our multi-agency Safety and Justice Challenge team – with support from our Community Collaborative and participation by all the agencies in our Justice Coordinating Council – has been able to reduce our jail population by 15 percent from its peak in 2014, when we had close to 2,400 people in our 2,477-bed jail, and when we began planning and applying for the grant.

Before that, average daily population had been steadily increasing on a very steep trajectory, and we were looking at the need to build another jail.

By 2019, we had been holding relatively steady at around 1,960 people in jail for quite some time, until the arrival of COVID-19 spurred us to reduce our jail population by more than another 20 percent in less than a month. At the time of writing this, we have a population of 1,541.

Furthermore, we’re proud to say we didn’t simply release individuals from our jail onto the streets.

Everyone who has been released from jail during this COVID-19 pandemic without a home to go to was successfully placed into housing where they will be able to abide by social distancing recommendations issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This housing will also reduce risk of relapsing with any behavioral health problems, which could increase their risk of re-arrest and coming back to jail.

How did we do it?

Trust among agency leaders

One of the main things that helped us is the trust among agency leaders from years of working together. For example, we have had good coordination between our office under the leadership of County Attorney Barbara LaWall and the Pima County Director of Public Defense Services, Dean Brault, who oversees the offices of our public defender, legal defender, and office of court appointed counsel. The Public Defender obtained permission from both public and private counsel and their clients to allow the Public Defender to represent all their clients who were inmates in our jail in connection with this initiative and to collaborate with us at the County Attorney’s Office. Simply put: All of us know each other, trust one another and have been working together closely.

The Safety and Justice Challenge grant from the MacArthur Foundation took an existing collaboration that had facilitated establishment of our Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison program instituted by our County Attorney in 2011 and moved us all forward together in a new direction. The grant also helped us to add new collaborator agencies, meet more frequently, have new goals, and focus specifically on our jail population. We also developed a community collaborative as part of the grant, so we have a broad network of community-based service providers and community leaders that we have been able to tap into at a moment’s notice, with agency heads who know one another.

The community collaborative brought in providers that we had not been working with previously, covering the gamut of re-entry services, faith-based agencies, as well as leadership from the county’s African American, Latinx, and Native American communities.

These bonds of trust and responsiveness made us nimble in responding to COVID-19, because we knew whom to contact to obtain services for inmates who would be released from the jail. When the County Attorney said she would support releases and wanted to make sure those released would have housing, transportation, and food, I knew our partner agencies could make it happen and that we could get it done together. I knew all I had to do was to pick up the phone or send an email.

It has been a heavy lift. But we have done it by all working together.

Reducing jail bookings

In mid-March, our Sheriff, Mark Napier, was one of the first people who said “we’ve really got to get ahead of this.” He directed his staff to figure out how to safely do jail intake, quarantine, and separation. Our jail is not a dorm style jail, it’s predominantly a pod-style jail—typically with just a few individuals per cell. Due to previous reductions in the jail population, some space was available. Now, there is even more space, so it is possible for the Sheriff’s correctional staff to have inmates practice social distancing and to set aside areas for quarantine and isolation as necessary.

On March 18, as the first COVID-19 cases were hitting Pima County, both the Sheriff and the County Attorney issued memos saying they would like our criminal justice partners to help reduce the jail population to pre-empt a crisis with the virus spreading there. The County Attorney urged all local law enforcement agencies to discontinue arrests for simple possession of drugs for personal use, crimes that are non-violent and non-dangerous. We suggested seizure of evidence in such cases, then either deflecting the individual directly to treatment, or simply waiting until the end of the health crisis to make an arrest.

We also indicated that we would not, for the time being, issue cases involving such arrests, would not seek indictments, and that the charges would be dismissed, so there would be no point in law enforcement making those arrests. In addition, our county attorney said she would not be issuing any indictments prior to arrest—for example, if agencies were trying to establish probable cause for a series of thefts, our county attorney said that if agencies did not yet have enough evidence now to demonstrate probable cause to make an arrest, our prosecutors would not be meeting with detectives to help them work towards gathering the evidence necessary for indictments.

These initiatives by County Attorney LaWall, along with pro-active direction given by Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus who operates a successful Deflection program, as well as Sheriff Napier and our other local law enforcement agency leaders, have cut jail bookings in half from what they were a month ago, according to data we just received from our Pretrial Services Director and from the Sheriff’s Department, from 218 a week in February to 111 last week. We also have increased the number of people who are eligible for release without having to pay money bail, from 48% in February, to 54% as of last week. Again, that has a significant impact on the number of people remaining in jail. 

Releasing people safely from jail

Then, our Sheriff made a series of recommendations about several categories of individuals who might be safely released from our jail, in partnership with our Courts, our County Attorney, and our Public Defense Services attorneys. We talked about the Sheriff’s Department Jail commander preparing a list of pre-trial detainees who had committed non-violent non-dangerous crimes, such as repeated shoplifting or simple drug possession for personal use, who had remained in jail simply due to inability to pay bail. Our Public Defender then led a review of that list on behalf of all the defense attorneys representing individuals on the list. And our County Attorney agreed to file joint motions along with the Public Defender, asking the Criminal Presiding Judge to remove bail as a condition for release, which the judge has granted.

Arizona has very strict laws on victims’ rights, and so the first of our joint motions related only to crimes without statutory victims. The second motion, filed a week later, included provisions to protect victims—for example, a person accused of shoplifting had to agree not to go near the store again—and that motion was granted a week later, resulting in the release of more people from custody.

It took five days from getting the list of detained people together to releasing the first round of individuals safely from the jail. It took another week for the second round.

Meanwhile, the Sheriff put together a separate list of inmates who were in custody awaiting hearings on petitions to revoke their probation for alleged violations, including some technical violations. The Presiding Criminal Judge referred that list to the assigned judges, each of whom determined whether it might be safe to release the probationer from jail at this time pending the hearings. Judges issued several orders asking the County Attorney whether there was any objection on behalf of the State, and in many cases, the County Attorney was able to respond that there was no objection.

Measuring success

Our Sheriff has been able to use the extra space freed up in the jail to institute safe quarantine and separation areas, and as a result, to my knowledge, we have so far avoided a single case of COVID-19 in our jail.

We are keen to share our experience with other jurisdictions; not to crow about our success at this very difficult time, but to offer up a best practice example, and to hold up a beacon for areas in which interagency trust and collaboration are emerging as one of the key factors necessary for success in stemming the spread of the virus within other jail systems.

—Amelia Cramer is the Chief Deputy Pima County Attorney in Tucson, Arizona.

The first time I was arrested was in 1994. I was five months pregnant with my youngest daughter when I was taken into custody and booked into Orleans Parish Prison (OPP). I spent three days in the booking center with only two cement blocks or the cement floor to sleep on. When I was transferred to the women’s tier, they held me for 60 days on attempted theft—the maximum amount of days allowed by law. On the 61st day, the DA declined to prosecute and I was free. When I was released, I was seven months pregnant and a month later my daughter was born premature. During those two months inside, “prenatal care” consisted of a pint of milk and some graham crackers given at lunch; I never once saw an OB/GYN.

Many people think that jails are where people stay for only a night or two before they are released, but the reality is quite a different story. Sixty days was a long time to be away from my family, separated from my children, and worried about the tiny life growing inside of me.

I was unemployed and out of school at the time. Not only did I complete my studies this past July, earning my associate degree in applied sciences, I have five grown children and I am the full-time guardian to my five-year-old grandson. I also have a full-time job with New Orleans Pretrial Services (NOPTS).

When I first came to NOPTS as an administrative assistant, I was not completely aware of the work that they were doing. As I began to understand more, I became very intrigued with their commitment to bringing awareness to issues of public safety and jail population as it pertains to those less fortunate. Unfortunately, in New Orleans, those most affected are those who look like me—African Americans who are at a greater risk of being targeted, detained, and convicted by the system and who lack the resources to gain their freedom pretrial.

Too many times, the underprivileged have pled guilty for the sole purpose of getting out of jail and returning to their families. I see this every day. For many people caught up in the system, it seems like less of a hassle than trying to fight the charge without money. Pretrial services looks at risk, not monetary resources; because of that, all people are considered based on an objective evaluation and what they’ve been charged with, no matter their race, class, or anything else.

But still, most who are stuck in jail pretrial look like me.

In fact, that was me. I would have definitely been eligible for non-financial release (“release on recognizance,” or ROR) in 1994—I had never been arrested; I was facing a minor, non-violent charge; I had strong family connections; and I was pregnant. Also, I strongly believe pretrial services would have connected me to resources that would help me deal with a lot of the barriers I was facing during that time in my life. I’ve said this time and time again: There were no pretrial services, Veras, or Micah Projects in my ‘hood then reaching out to me. My choices were very limited, so I made the best decision I could, given the choices available at the time.

I wholeheartedly believe that if I would have had an organization like NOPTS to help me on that journey to recovery, employment, and education, I would not have made a lot of the negative choices I made over the years. I didn’t know that I had other options and I considered myself a smart young woman at the time. I mastered all the resources available to me in my ‘hood, but no one ever told me I could graduate college, speak to others about anything, work for an organization that helps others, or be someone who others looked up to. That’s what my life is about now—all because God knew the plans He had for my life and being employed with NOPTS was in the plan. My surroundings changed, so my influences changed, and thus my thinking continues to expand and change every day.

I joke with my colleagues that I feel like I’m in the NOPTS supervision program myself, because each time a client comes through our doors, I see myself in them and want them to know there are options and supportive services available to them. The supervision specialist has been a mentor as well as a friend since I was hired. There were a lot of uncertainties in my life and she has helped me understand that life can be uncertain, but if I’m determined to do the right thing, help others, and know my worth, there’s nothing I can’t accomplish. I live each day determined to help others and do better than I did the day before.

Recently, I was invited to a foot washing ceremony organized by the Micah Project. Of course, I said to Mark Walters, one of their organizers, “Sure, I will wash feet.” My thought was that this would be a way to serve others. But then Mark said to me, “No, Dolfinette; we would like to wash your feet.” I was flooded with emotions. I didn’t feel I was worthy of such a humbling gesture. But God’s ways are not like man, nor are His thoughts. He put me on the heart of someone else and that in itself is very humbling. I was so overwhelmed once the ceremony started, because nothing about my past had ever prepared me to feel the presence of God so deeply. I literally saw God at work and, let me tell you, it is a feeling that is unexplainable. But again, God’s ways and thoughts are not like those of men. He doesn’t remember the past and He loves beyond faults.

Often people will hear me reference God for saving my life, because that’s my own personal belief. I am very aware of all the different beliefs in our nation and beyond. However, for me—and I hope not to offend anyone—when someone has been through as much as I have, I can look back over my life and see instances where I should have been dead and I can’t explain why I am not. In those moments I ask, “If it had not been for the Lord on my side, tell me, folks, where would I be?”

I am grateful to be right where I am, every single day.

This post originally appeared on the Vera Institute of Justice’s Current Thinking Blog. 

This spring, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, is sponsoring its first Reentry Resource Fair. Vendors, employers, service providers and city agencies will set up tables and displays, hoping to attract the attention of the members of the public who have come to the event. Their intended targets, men and women, young and not so young, all have one thing in common: they have, at some point in their lives, been convicted of a felony.

The Resource Fair marks another milestone in Charlottesville’s evolution as a “Second Chance City”. Over the past six years, Charlottesville has been working to make sure that folks returning from incarceration are welcomed to reintegrate and become contributing members of the community. What’s remarkable is that almost everyone – the Chamber of Commerce, judges and prosecutors, City Council – is on board.

A crisis was the catalyst for building the consensus around Charlottesville’s commitment. In 2010, the community was facing the need to spend several million dollars for a new wing for its overcrowded regional jail, as well as the skyrocketing per-diem costs of increasing numbers of inmates. Certified for 329 beds, the jail was regularly reporting daily populations approaching 600, and continued growth seemed inevitable.

Instead, the City and neighboring Albemarle County, who jointly run the local jail, applied to be part of the National Institute of Corrections effort to form an evidence-based decision making initiative to look at ways to reduce the community’s reliance on the jail and improve public safety. Originally targeted specifically at controlling recidivism, the effort has grown to include prevention, diversion, housing, jail programming, mental health care, reentry preparation, and reintegration into the community for returning citizens. It has become the model for a new statewide evidence-based decision making practice. Subsequent state and federal grants have helped the community share data, institute risk assessment practices and create innovative programs in the jail and in the community.

Programs in the jail itself where inmates can earn educational credits, get work certifications like small engine repair, and participate in therapeutic group work helps them return with skills and strengths they may not have had before. A six-month re-entry employment program with the City Parks and Rec Department gives returning residents a chance to earn money while learning job skills and earning a good reference to future employment. The removal of criminal record disclosure on City job applications, the coordination of services, and attention to the needs of families provide the supports that help returning citizens succeed.

And it’s working. This year, the average daily population at the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail is 459, and it continues to drop.

Why Charlottesville is a second chance city

Saving money isn’t the only reason Charlottesville has committed to being a Second Chance City. Almost everyone our community incarcerates ends up coming home eventually. Of course, our hope is that they will reconnect with family, get a job, and never offend again. And that is the intention of the overwhelming number of people who are released from incarceration. But even in the best cases, there are lots of challenges. People leaving incarceration often are returning to families where they have done harm, and relationships have been damaged. Parents and children have been traumatized – not only by the crime that led to incarceration, but by the separation itself. Returning family members may be behind on child support and court cost payments, banned from the public housing neighborhood where their families live because of their criminal record, and unable to convince employers to take a chance on a former felon.

Frustration and self-doubt, while natural under these circumstances, don’t always lead to the best choices, and that is often when people violate their probation or re-offend and end up re-incarcerated – re-traumatizing their families, and making it even harder to be successful the next time.

Two key responsibilities of cities are providing for public safety and for the education and welfare of children. If we help former felons engage with their families, with employment, and with the community, they are less likely to re-offend and more likely to set a good example to their children and to other young people. What’s more, children with both fathers and mothers in their lives do better in school, are less likely to live in poverty, and are less likely to become involved in the justice system themselves.

So Charlottesville remains deeply committed to being a Second Chance City – one that recognizes the potential of its returning citizens to become contributing members of the local economy and assets to our community. Our belief in them helps to make their potential a reality.

Click here to review more information on the elements of Charlottesville’s Second Chance Policy.

This post originally appeared on The National League of Cities’ CitiesSpeak blog. 

Counties and cities nationwide are taking steps to reduce the number of individuals held in their jails. Inmate populations have grown four-fold since 1970, and there is a growing awareness that many of those held pretrial present little public safety risk and are likely to appear for their court dates. There are many factors that have driven the growth of jail populations—from rising bail amounts to changes in law enforcement practices. When crime rates were higher 30 years ago, there were 51 admissions into jail for every 100 arrests. By 2012, that number had climbed to 95 per 100. And while jail administrators are tasked with responsibility for the constitutional care and custody of a growing population—too often with a budget that does not also rise—there is generally little they can do to reduce the number of people held in their jail, which is driven by the decisions of police, prosecutors, and judges.

In the past, the answer to the problem of increasing jail populations was to expand jail capacity. But today, many are instead asking “what size should the jail be?” Answering this question is challenging, particularly because it is difficult to get basic data on how the jail population and local incarceration rate has changed over time, a first step in understanding what has driven jail growth, and what might change it.

To address this data gap, the Vera Institute of Justice developed the Incarceration Trends data tool (available for free at trends.vera.org), which aggregates the jail population and admissions data that corrections officials have submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics since 1970. This new tool allows anyone to examine county-level trends in the jail incarceration rate, and compare these trends to state and national averages and other specific counties.

A review of this data tells us that there is wide variation in incarceration rates among similar jurisdictions: while in the 1970s, county incarceration rates rarely exceeded 300 per 100,000 residents age 15–64, today the county rate averages more than 300 per 100,000 nationally, and is greater than 1,000 per 100,000 in more than 100 counties. And each county’s jail problem is different. Too many people in the jail is one issue, but not the only one: who those people are is another, for example, as is how long people stay in the jail.

The Incarceration Trends data tool provides a means to explore the answers to five questions that can inform a data-driven conversation on how the county uses its jail.

1. How does the county’s jail incarceration rate today compare to the state and national average? If the county jail incarceration rate exceeds these averages, it suggests there may be an opportunity to reduce the jail population to at least bring it in line with current norms. But it is important to keep in mind that the national average itself has grown substantially and is a high benchmark from a historical perspective. It doesn’t necessarily tell you what the rate for a particular county should be.

2. How does the county’s jail incarceration rate today compare to its historical trend? After four decades of growth, it is sometimes easy to forget that jails were not always the size they are today. If a county’s incarceration rate is now substantially higher than it once was, why is that? Is it justified by the county’s public safety needs? Are defendants incarcerated now who wouldn’t have been in prior years? If so, why? Pretrial detention for defendants accused of low-level offenses has risen dramatically over the past 30 years and many jurisdictions are questioning the value of this practice (and its cost).

3. What factors have driven jail population growth? The size of the jail population is driven by the number of admissions and the average length of stay. Which factors have driven jail growth? A growth in admissions can reflect, for example, changes in law enforcement arrest and booking practices, the prosecutor’s approach to charging, or the jurisdiction’s policy and practice around pretrial release. Growth in length of stay suggests challenges in processing cases; a function, perhaps, of rising numbers but also systemic inefficiencies.

4. Has the incarceration rate for women grown disproportionately? The number of women in jail nationwide has increased by 14 times since 1970—from 8,000 to 110,000—compared to a 4-fold increase for men. Women now comprise 16 percent of all incarcerated individuals and are often held in jail for low-level charges. Can you document a rising number of women in your jail? If so, what might be driving it?

5. Are racial and ethnic minority groups disproportionately represented in the jail, and if so, has that disproportionality grown over time? The overuse of the jail is not only measured by the size of the jail population, but also how certain demographic groups are overrepresented. These disparities can be hard to discuss but shed necessary light on policies and practices within the local justice system that may have a disparate impact on different groups.

The wide variation in the use of jail among similar counties demonstrates that the number of people behind bars—and their demographic disparities—is largely the result of policy and practice choices. And while corrections officials cannot decide who lands in the jail, the public looks to jail administrators for leadership when it comes to thinking about the county’s jail needs. With this information we hope that jail administrators nationwide can lead a conversation with their justice-system colleagues on the use of the jail.

This article was originally published in the American Jail Association 2016 Produces & Services Resource Guide.